Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sabina, J.
Sandeep Goyal and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Fourth Bail Application No. 9096/2020 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Fifth Bail Application No. 11621/2020
Decided On : 13.10.2020
For the Appellant :Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa and Narendra Kumar Pareek, Advocates
For the Respondents:Siddharth Ranka, Advocate
In cases involving serious allegations and lengthy custody periods, courts may grant bail considering the maximum punishment and the lengthy trial process, balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Headnote:
BAIL - CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 - SECTION 132(1)(B)(C)(D)(F)(I) AND (L) READ WITH SECTION 132(1)(I)(IV) AND READ WITH SUB-SECTION (5) - Petitioners granted bail after being in custody for over two years, despite serious allegations of creating fake firms and issuing GST invoices without physical movement of goods, considering the maximum punishment of five years and the lengthy trial process.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, in custody since August 2018, sought bail in a case involving offenses under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging creation of fake firms and issuance of GST invoices without physical movement of goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but noted the lengthy custody period, the maximum punishment of five years, and the lengthy trial process.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the serious allegations, lengthy custody period, and the maximum punishment of five years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing the purpose of bail and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioners, considering their lengthy custody period and the lengthy trial process, subject to furnishing bail bonds and other conditions.
ORDER :
Sabina, J.
1. Vide this order, abovementioned two bail petitions would be disposed of.
2. Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 15/2018 registered at Police Station DGGI, GST, Jaipur (Raj.) for offences under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(d)(f)(i) and (l) read with Section 132(1)(i)(iv) and read with sub-section (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 03.08.2018. Maximum punishment that can be awarded is sentence of five years. Hence, the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail. Case is listed for pre-charge evidence before the trial court. Investigation in the present case was completed in July, 2020. Hence, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial at an early date. In support of their arguments, learned counsel have placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012)1 SCC 40, wherein it was held as under:
"40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
47. In the view we have taken, it may not be necessary to refer and discuss other issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and the case laws relied on in support of their respective contentions. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the other legal issues canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
48. In the result, we order that the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following conditions:-
(a) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
(b) They shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
(c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.
(d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the learned Special Judge, CB
